Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ERIC C. RAJALA, as Bankruptcy Trustee for ETHANEX ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Serve: 1 James Center 901 E. Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219-4030 Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 08-CV-2638

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, Eric Rajala, as bankruptcy Trustee for Ethanex Energy, Inc. (Ethanex), by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to the Courts Order dated May 14, 2010, and for his Third Amended Complaint against Defendant McGuire Woods, LLP, alleges as follows: Nature of the Case 1. Louis W. Zehil (Zehil) was a partner in the law firm of McGuire Woods, LLP

(McGuire Woods). Defendant McGuire Woods was retained to represent Ethanex in the process of becoming a public company and raising capital for the development of ethanol manufacturing plants. As explained in further detail below, Zehil used his position as a partner of McGuire Woods, and as one of the McGuire Woods attorneys representing Ethanex, to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme in which Zehil unlawfully came into possession of unrestricted securities of Plaintiff and then unlawfully sold these securities at great profit and at great harm to Plaintiff. In late February 2007, Zehil was charged with criminal violations of United States

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 27

securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York arising out of the Ethanex transaction and several similar transactions. Parties 2. Eric C. Rajala is the Trustee for Ethanex Energy, Inc., a corporation organized

under the laws of the State of Nevada. Ethanex Energy, Inc. is currently in bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, Case No. 08-20645-7. For purposes of this pleading, Trustee Rajala and Ethanex Energy, Inc. may be referred to herein collectively as Ethanex. As the Trustee for Ethanex, Rajala has the right to prosecute this action on behalf of the Ethanex bankruptcy estate and, as Trustee for Ethanex, Rajala has rights of Ethanex as a former client of Defendant McGuire Woods. 3. While in operation, Ethanexs corporate headquarters were located in Basehor,

Kansas. Ethanexs business plan included designing and developing ethanol plants. 4. Defendant McGuire Woods, LLP is a multinational law firm, organized as a

limited liability partnership under Virginia law. McGuire Woods principle offices are in Richmond, Virginia. 5. Louis W. Zehil (Zehil) is a resident of Ponte Verde Beach, Florida and was

admitted to practice law in the State of New York in 1995. Between April 2004 and his resignation in February 2007, Zehil was a partner of the law firm McGuire Woods, LLP and worked primarily in its offices in Jacksonville, Florida and New York, New York. 6. Zehil created two shell entities which were under his complete domination and

control, Strong Branch Ventures IV, LLP (Strong Branch) and Chestnut Capital Partners II, LLC (Chestnut). Upon information and belief, Strong Branch and Chestnut had no legitimate

purpose and existed solely to facilitate the fraud and wrongful acts described herein.

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 27

7.

Louis Zehil, Strong Branch and Chestnut are presently the defendants in a suit

pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Louis Zehil, Strong Branch Ventures IV, LLP, and Chestnut Capital Partners II, LLC, Case No. 07 Civ. 1439 (the SEC litigation). Ethanex has previously filed a claim in those proceedings against the receivership estate. McGuire Woods is not a party to the New York litigation. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has now stayed the SEC litigation and has held it has the power to stay all other actions against Zehil, Strong Branch and Chestnut in favor of the ongoing federal criminal prosecution of Zehil. Pursuant to the Orders entered in the SEC litigation, Plaintiff hereby dismisses, without prejudice, the claims made in the unserved Complaint in this case against Zehil, Strong Branch and Chestnut, by the filing of this Amended Complaint. 8. In his dealings with Ethanex, Zehil acted in his capacity as a partner of Defendant

McGuire Woods. McGuire Woods billed Ethanex for the time Zehil devoted to his duties as outside general counsel and as corporate secretary to Ethanex. In all, Ethanex paid McGuire Woods more than $350,000.00 for legal services and expenses. As set forth at length below, an essential instrument of the fraud was an opinion letter which Zehil was authorized by McGuire Woods to execute on behalf of McGuire Woods. 9. At all times, Defendant McGuire Woods had the ability, right, obligation and duty

to control and monitor Zehils actions as an attorney and partner in McGuire Woods. 10. Defendant McGuire Woods had, and has, either actual or constructive knowledge

of all matters known to Zehil.

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 4 of 27

11.

In performing legal services for Ethanex, Zehil was assisted by several McGuire

Woods attorneys, including Nova D. Harb, Jonathan Sacks and Andrew H. Slaughter, and utilized other resources and facilities of McGuire Woods. Jurisdiction and Venue 12. Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. 1332. There is

complete diversity between the parties. As set forth above, the Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Nevada and has its principle place of business in Kansas. Defendant McGuire Woods is organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and has its principle place of business in the State of Virginia. Ethanex paid McGuire Woods legal fees to which it was not entitled in excess of three hundred thousand dollars. McGuire Woods actions have caused foreseeable consequential damages including, but not limited to, the payment of liquidated damages by Ethanex, the cost of an investigation into McGuire Woods wrongdoing and the eventual loss of Ethanexs business as a going concern. The amount in controversy therefore exceeds $75,000.00. 13. Subject matter jurisdiction is also proper based upon the general federal question

statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that the claims set forth below include Defendants jurisdiction provided in violations of 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, propagated thereunder, and 16b of the Securities Exchange Act, 78j U.S.C. 78p (b). 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 15 U.S.C. 78aa grant this Court subject matter jurisdiction over a claim or controversy arising under the 1934 Securities Act, and the Court may entertain all other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, in that all such claims arise as part of the same case or controversy between the parties.

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 5 of 27

14.

McGuire Woods is subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to K.S.A. 60-

308(b)(2), in that its unlawful and tortious acts have caused, and were reasonably anticipated to cause, economic injury within the State of Kansas. Defendant McGuire Woods purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in Kansas with regard to the representation of Plaintiff. 15. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) and (b), in that a

substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims, and a substantial part of the property which is the subject of this litigation, is situated in this District. Facts Common to All Counts 16. In the normal course of McGuire Woods business, Zehil and other McGuire

Woods lawyers specialized in representing companies seeking to raise capital in the public market. One typical structure for such a transaction would be for McGuire Woods to arrange for the client to merge with a small publicly traded company. After the merger, the client would be the surviving entity and the name of the publicly traded company would be changed to that of his client. In order to raise capital, at or prior to the merger, McGuire Woods would enlist investors through a private placement transaction. Typically, these companies would enter into a transaction referred to as a Private Investment in Public Entity (PIPE) solicitation at the time of the reverse merger, or shortly thereafter, to generate financing for the newly-merged public company. 17. In a PIPE transaction, a company typically offers unregistered, restricted shares to

investors at a discount to the market price or anticipated market price for the securities. Investors typically enter into a registration rights agreement, which obligates the company to

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 6 of 27

register the shares with the SEC in the future so that the shares may be resold on the public markets. 18. In the usual course of a PIPE transaction, the stock issued to the PIPE investors is

not freely tradable because it is not yet registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). Consequently, all shares issued in a PIPE transaction are required to bear restrictive legends until such time as the SEC declares the registration statements for those securities effective. 19. Defendant McGuire Woods was aware of, supported, and profited from offering

legal services to companies in search of capital and in the specialized practice in PIPE transactions. McGuire Woods markets its services by claiming unique expertise in such representations. By way of example, in September 2005, McGuire Woods co-sponsored a conference/marketing presentation, at which Zehil was a featured speaker, on the use of such reverse mergers and PIPE transactions to raise capital for small and start-up business. The Ethanex Transaction 20. Ethanexs predecessor, Armistead Energy, Inc., retained McGuire Woods as its

counsel. That relationship was documented by a June 15, 2006 engagement letter on McGuire Woods stationary. McGuire Woods authorized Zehil to execute that engagement letter on behalf of McGuire Woods. In the engagement letter, McGuire Woods stated that Zehil would be the partner with general and primary responsibility for the representation, but that he would be assisted by other McGuire Woods attorneys and staff. McGuire Woods agreed and promised as follows: [to] advise the Company [Armistead] in connection with, and the scope of our engagement and duties to the Company will relate to, an equity financing and possible reverse merger and related financing transactions and matters incident thereto. The Company may limit

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 7 of 27

or expand our representation from time to time, provided that any substantial expansion must be agreed by us. 21. On July 17, 2006, Armistead filed the necessary paperwork with the Delaware

Secretary of State to change its name to Ethanex Energy North America, Inc. 22. Following the PIPE transaction format which McGuire Woods had successfully

used for other small companies, McGuire Woods prepared a private placement memorandum and registration rights agreement on behalf of Ethanex Energy North America, Inc. The plan of the PIPE offering was that the shares of Ethanex Energy North America, Inc. that were sold pursuant to the PIPE offering would be converted to shares of a surviving publicly traded entity, and then registered with the SEC for resale to the public. 23. In the Ethanex PIPE offering, investors subscribed to purchase 20 million units of

the PIPE securities. Each unit consisted of one share of class B common stock and a warrant to purchase one share of class B common stock for a period of five years at an exercise price of $1.50 per share. The investors in the offering collectively purchased 20 million units for a total consideration of $20,000,000, or one dollar per unit. 24. On August 3, 2006, Ethanex Energy North America, Inc. closed the subscription

period for the PIPE offering. 25. On August 3, 2006, subscribers to the Ethanex PIPE offering entered into a

Registration Rights Agreement. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, Ethanex North America, Inc. promised the shareholders that it would file a registration statement, allowing the public sale of the securities, no later than 120 days after the merger with the public company and would use its best efforts to cause the registration to become effective within 120 days from the registration filing date. Under the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement, the company

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 8 of 27

agreed to pay liquidated damages to the shareholders if the registration was not completed in a timely manner. 26. The Subscription Agreement signed by the Ethanex PIPE investors, which was

prepared by McGuire Woods, required each investor to state that the investor has no present intention of selling the securities that would be acquired through the PIPE offering and that such securities would bear appropriate legends concerning the restrictions on transferability of those shares until the registration of those shares became effective. 27. As planned in the PIPE offering, Ethanex Energy, Inc. merged with a publicly

traded company known as New Inverness Exploration Company on August 21, 2007, with Ethanex the surviving entity. Although publicly traded, New Inverness was an unsuccessful mineral exploration company and was little more than a corporate shell. 28. On September 1, 2006, Ethanex North America, Inc. merged into Ethanex

Energy, Inc., with Ethanex Energy, Inc., the Plaintiff, as the surviving entity. Thus the units sold (subscribed) by Ethanex North America, Inc. in the Ethanex PIPE offering became shares of the publicly traded entity, Ethanex Energy, Inc. (referred to herein as Plaintiff or Ethanex) f/k/a New Inverness Exploration Company. McGuire Woods continued to represent Ethanex. 29. In the Ethanex PIPE offering, Zehil caused Strong Branch to purchase 750,000

units and caused Chestnut to also purchase 750,000 units of the PIPE offering. McGuire Woods assisted in processing these transactions. 30. On September 1, 2006, McGuire Woods issued an opinion letter on McGuire

Woods letterhead to the transfer agent for the Ethanex shares, an entity called Island Stock Transfer of St. Petersburg, Florida. The opinion letter was signed by McGuire Woods under the actual authority McGuire Woods granted to Zehil. That letter, which was dated August 31,

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 9 of 27

2006, directed Island Stock Transfer to issue shares to Strong Branch and Chestnut without the restrictive endorsement which was required on the shares by the terms of the PIPE offering and federal and state securities laws. As a result, Strong Branch and Chestnut were issued shares that were on their face freely transferable without notice to the purchaser that the transfer was unlawful because there was no effective registration of the Ethanex PIPE shares. McGuire Woods assisted in processing the payments for these transactions. 31. Zehil, acting as attorney in fact for Strong Branch and Chestnut, exercised the

warrants issued with each unit, resulting in Strong Branch and Chestnut each owning 1,500,000 shares of Ethanex stock, for a total of 3,000,000 shares. Upon information and belief, based upon the calculations performed by the SEC, Zehil (through the shells Strong Branch and Chestnut) paid a combined price of $3,750,000 for these shares. McGuire Woods assisted in processing the payments for these transactions. 32. Zehil, as a partner in McGuire Woods and using McGuire Woods stationary,

directed the transfer agent to send the Ethanex shares purchased by Strong Branch and Chestnut to his attention at the New York office of McGuire Woods. 33. Between September 11, 2006 and November 10, 2006, Zehil caused Strong

Branch and Chestnut to unlawfully sell their three million shares of Ethanex stock to the investing public for approximately $12.3 million, obtaining a profit of approximately $8.55 million dollars. 34. Although Zehil was a partner at McGuire Woods and the corporate secretary of

Ethanex at the time of the sale, McGuire Woods did not include any disclosure of Zehils ownership or sales of Ethanex stock, in the disclosures it drafted for Ethanex or was obligated to file for Ethanex.

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 10 of 27

35.

On January 3, 2007, Ethanex filed a Form SB-2, a SEC-mandated registration

statement, to obtain an effective registration of the shares sold in the Ethanex PIPE offering. This Form SB-2 was drafted for Ethanex by McGuire Woods. Once the registration was effective, the shares would be freely transferable. However, this registration statement did not become effective as of that date and there was no registration statement on file, or effective, when Zehil caused Chestnut and Strong Branch to sell their three million shares of Ethanex in September and November of 2006. 36. As counsel for Ethanex, McGuire Woods was responsible for reviewing and

preparing Ethanexs January 3, 2007 Form SB-2. That Form SB-2 was materially incorrect in several respects, including failing to disclose that Strong Branch and Chestnut had already unlawfully sold their Ethanex shares or that Strong Branch and Chestnut had, because of McGuire Woods actions, been issued shares of Ethanex stock which did not bear the restrictive endorsement. 37. As legal counsel to Ethanex, McGuire Woods was responsible for monitoring and

advising all aspects of the Ethanexs formation/creation, organization, structure and capitalization, including but not limited to the PIPE transaction and the conduct of the entities and individuals involved. This included, without limitation, Tompkins Capital Group; the law firm of Gottbetter & Partners LLP; Adam Gottbetter and Kenneth Goodwin (attorneys at Gottbetter & Partners); the accounting firm of Bagell, Josephs, Levine & Company, LLC; Island Stock Transfer; Strong Branch Ventures IV, LP; Chestnut Capital Partners II, LLC; and Louis Zehil. 38. At the time McGuire Woods issued the false opinion letter allowing the Ethanex

shares to be issued to Strong Branch and Chestnut on an unrestricted basis, Zehil had already

10

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 11 of 27

used his position at McGuire Woods to conduct very similar frauds in PIPE transactions for several other McGuire Woods clients, including Gran Tierra Energy, Inc. in January, 2006; Foothills Resources, Inc. in April, 2006; MMC Energy, Inc. in May, 2006; and Alternative Energy Sources, Inc. in June, 2006. In each of these transactions, McGuire Woods issued a false opinion letter to the transfer agent allowing Zehil to receive unrestricted shares of the company and make unlawful profits from the sale of the shares. 39. At all times, Defendant McGuire Woods had the ability, right, obligation and duty

to control and monitor Defendant Zehils actions as an attorney and partner in McGuire Woods. 40. Zehils representation of Ethanex, his issuance of the McGuire Woods opinion

letter to the transfer agent and subsequent efforts to conceal the illegal transactions in the SEC filings were within Zehils apparent and actual authority as a partner in McGuire Woods. 41. Zehil would not have been able to carry out his unlawful activities without the use

of his position at McGuire Woods, the use of other McGuire Woods attorneys and the relationship of trust created between Ethanex and McGuire Woods. 42. In February, 2007, before the Ethanex stock registration was deemed effective by

the SEC, Ethanex was made aware of McGuire Woods unlawful activities. 43. On February 22, 2007, Ethanex fired McGuire Woods as outside counsel and

corporate secretary. 44. On or about February 28, 2007, criminal charges were commenced against

Defendant Zehil in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging felony violations of federal securities laws. 45. As a result of McGuire Woods conduct, Ethanex was required to obtain

replacement counsel and temporarily suspend its effort to finalize the registration of the Ethanex

11

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 12 of 27

stock with the SEC. Excluding the preparation of this litigation by the undersigned counsel, Ethanex spent approximately $96,463.71 in legal fees and costs in connection with the investigation and the continuing work needed to remedy the injury caused by McGuire Woods misconduct. 46. By order of the SEC, the registration of the Ethanex PIPE shares became effective

on July 6, 2007. However, during the summer of 2007, the over the counter price for Ethanex shares had dropped well below the PIPE offering price and well below the price at which Zehil had sold and garnered his unlawful profits. The price of Ethanex shares, as adjusted for a reverse 1:10 stock split, has never recovered to the PIPE transaction price. 47. Because of the delay in obtaining SEC approval of the registration of the Ethanex

stock caused by McGuire Woods conduct, Ethanex was required to, and did, pay approximately $592,000.00 in liquidated damages to eligible shareholders pursuant to the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement. 48. When Ethanex terminated its counsel relationship with McGuire Woods, McGuire

Woods attorneys were working on several contracts and negotiations which were important to Ethanexs business. As a result of the termination of the attorney-client relationship, Ethanex had to suspend negotiations on these transactions. The resulting delay caused Ethanex to incur additional legal fees and to be unable to complete such contracts. 49. The conduct of McGuire Woods caused irreparable and substantial harm to

Ethanexs operations and ability to operate as a going concern. McGuire Woods conduct caused the failure of Ethanex as a business and the loss of its expectancies.

12

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 13 of 27

50.

Ethanex had the following reasonable business expectancies, without limitation: a. that it would complete the PIPE transaction and that its securities would be promptly and lawfully available for sale in the public markets as alleged above; b. that it would be able to conduct itself in a financially prudent manner, including retaining its capital and avoiding losing its capital and/or paying penalties; c. that it would pursue its business and engage in the successful and profitable construction and operation of ethanol plants; d. that it would enjoy the benefits of the successful and profitable construction and operation of ethanol plants, including but not limited to the profits resulting therefrom; and e. that it would ultimately enjoy the value of the ethanol plants.

These expectancies are hereinafter referred to as the Expectancies. 51. McGuire Woods conduct detailed herein damaged Ethanex in many ways,

including but not limited to the following: a. by interfering with the Expectancies, as defined above; b. by depriving Ethanex of the Expectancies, as defined above; c. by causing Ethanex to lose its capital; d. by causing Ethanex to pay the penalties described herein; e. by causing Ethanex to need to obtain replacement counsel, with the resulting damages; f. by causing Ethanex to temporarily suspend its effort to finalize the registration of the Ethanex stock with the SEC;

13

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 14 of 27

g. by depriving Ethanex of the ability to proceed with its business plan and engage in the successful and profitable construction and operations of ethanol plants; h. by depriving Ethanex of the benefits of the successful and profitable construction and operation of ethanol plants, including but not limited to the profits resulting therefrom; i. by depriving Ethanex of the value of the ethanol plants; j. by depriving Ethanex of the ability to operate as a going concern; k. by causing the failure of Ethanex as a business; and l. by causing the total financial collapse of Ethanex. These damages are referred to hereinafter as the Damages. 52. operations. COUNT I Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 53. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in Ethanex filed for bankruptcy in March 27, 2008 and has ceased business

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 54. As set forth herein, McGuire Woods, directly or indirectly, knowingly or

recklessly, by use of the means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of the facilities of a national security exchange in connection with the purchase and sale of securities: (a) has employed schemes and artifices to defraud Ethanex and others; (b) has made untrue statements of material fact, and have omitted and failed to state material facts necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not

14

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 15 of 27

misleading; and (c) has engaged in transactions, acts, practices and courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities. 55. Pursuant to the PIPE offering, in August 2006, Ethanex sold securities to

McGuire Woods partner Zehil in a transaction in which McGuire Woods represented Ethanex. 56. In the course of the sale, McGuire Woods did not disclose that its partner intended

to and did follow the same fraudulent scheme he had employed with the prior transactions to use his position with McGuire Woods to unlawfully obtain unrestricted shares of the securities. 57. Defendant McGuire Woods then concealed this fraud in preparing a fraudulent

SEC Form SB-2 registration statement which did not reveal the unlawful issuance of unregistered securities as a result of a McGuire Woods opinion letter or the unlawful resale of the securities for the benefit of a McGuire Woods partner. 58. The misrepresentations were material to the transaction in that Ethanex was not

willing to violate the law by selling restricted securities as unrestricted securities and would not have sold the securities had it been aware of the truth. 59. McGuire Woods partner Zehil obtained an unlawful gain in that he was able to

obtain the Ethanex shares at the price discounted in light of their unregistered status, yet received shares which did not bear the restriction on transferability required by that unregistered status. McGuire Woods received a direct benefit in the payment of legal fees for the Ethanex PIPE transaction which would not have occurred had McGuire Woods divulged truthful information about the representation. 60. As a result of the conduct of McGuire Woods, Ethanex was damaged as set forth

above, including but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50.

15

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 16 of 27

61.

By reason of the foregoing, McGuire Woods has directly or indirectly violated

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78J(b)] and Rule 10 B-5 [17 C.F.R. 240.10 B5]. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper, including but not limited to all relief available pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78J(b)] and Rule 10 B-5 [17 C.F.R. 240.10 B-5]. COUNT II Violation of K.S.A. 17-12a501 62. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 63. As set forth herein, McGuire Woods, directly or indirectly, knowingly or

recklessly, by use of the means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of the facilities of a national security exchange in connection with the purchase and sale of securities: (a) has employed schemes and artifices to defraud Ethanex and others; (b) has made untrue statements of material fact, and have omitted and failed to state material facts necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c) has engaged in transactions, acts, practices and courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities. 64. Pursuant to the PIPE offering, in August 2006, Ethanex sold securities to

McGuire Woods partner Zehil in a transaction in which McGuire Woods represented Ethanex.

16

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 17 of 27

65.

In the course of the sale, McGuire Woods did not disclose that its partner intended

to and did follow the same fraudulent scheme he had employed with the prior transactions to use his position with McGuire Woods to unlawfully obtain unrestricted shares of the securities. 66. Defendant McGuire Woods then concealed this fraud in preparing a fraudulent

SEC Form SB-2 registration statement which did not reveal the unlawful issuance of unregistered securities as a result of a McGuire Woods opinion letter or the unlawful resale of the securities for the benefit of a McGuire Woods partner. 67. The misrepresentations were material to the transaction in that Ethanex was not

willing to violate the law by selling restricted securities as unrestricted securities and would not have sold the securities had it been aware of the truth. 68. McGuire Woods partner Zehil obtained an unlawful gain in that he was able to

obtain the Ethanex shares at the price discounted in light of their unregistered status, yet received shares which did not bear the restriction on transferability required by that unregistered status. McGuire Woods received a direct benefit in the payment of legal fees for the Ethanex PIPE transaction which would not have occurred had McGuire Woods divulged truthful information about the representation. 69. As a result of the conduct of McGuire Woods, Ethanex was damaged as set forth

above, including but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50. 70. By reason of the foregoing, McGuire Woods has directly or indirectly violated

K.S.A. Section 17-12a501 and Ethanex is entitled to the remedies provided by K.S.A. 1712a509(c), including return of all revenue received, actual damages, interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees.

17

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 18 of 27

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper, including but not limited to all remedies provided by K.S.A. 1712a509(c). COUNT III Fraud 71. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 72. Pursuant to the PIPE offering, in August 2006, Ethanex sold securities to

McGuire Woods partner Zehil in a transaction in which McGuire Woods represented Ethanex. 73. In the course of the sale, McGuire Woods did not disclose that its partner intended

to and did follow the same fraudulent scheme he had employed with the prior transactions to use his position with McGuire Woods to unlawfully obtain unrestricted shares of the securities. 74. Defendant McGuire Woods then concealed this fraud in preparing a fraudulent

SEC Form SB-2 registration statement which did not reveal the unlawful issuance of unregistered securities as a result of a McGuire Woods opinion letter or the unlawful resale of the securities for the benefit of a McGuire Woods partner. 75. The misrepresentations were material to the transaction in that Ethanex was not

willing to violate the law by selling restricted securities as unrestricted securities and would not have sold the securities had it been aware of the truth. 76. McGuire Woods partner Zehil obtained an unlawful gain in that he was able to

obtain the Ethanex shares at the price discounted in light of their unregistered status, yet received

18

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 19 of 27

shares which did not bear the restriction on transferability required by that unregistered status. McGuire Woods received a direct benefit in the payment of legal fees for the Ethanex PIPE transaction which would not have occurred had McGuire Woods divulged truthful information about the representation. 77. As a result of the conduct of McGuire Woods, Ethanex was damaged as set forth

above, including but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50. 78. Ethanex did not, nor could it have discovered by the exercise of reasonable

diligence, the knowledge that McGuire Woods had defrauded it as described above. 79. McGuire Woods was under an obligation and duty to communicate truthful

information to Ethanex, in that McGuire Woods had been retained as counsel and business advisors to Ethanex with regard to the transactions alleged herein. 80. McGuire Woods intended that Ethanex rely upon their obligation to speak the

truth in accepting McGuire Woods legal counsel as to those transactions. 81. Ethanex justifiably relied upon McGuire Woods, in that not only was McGuire

Woods Ethanexs counsel and fiduciary, but also in that McGuire Woods touted itself as being a respectable, powerful and ethical law firm and one of the largest law firms in the United States. 82. Ethanex has been injured by McGuire Woods fraud as set forth above, including

but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50. 83. McGuire Woods actions and omissions were done in a willful, wanton,

fraudulent and malicious manner in complete recklessness of the harm visited upon Ethanex, and in complete abrogation of the special duties as the counsel to Ethanex. As a result, punitive

19

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 20 of 27

damages should be awarded to punish the McGuire Woods and deter others from similar conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper. COUNT IV Tortious Interference with Business Expectancies 84. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 85. Ethanex had the following reasonable businesses expectancies, without limitation: a. that it would complete the PIPE transaction and that its securities would be promptly and lawfully available for sale in the public markets as alleged above; b. that it would be able to conduct itself in a financially prudent manner, including retaining its capital and avoiding losing its capital and/or paying penalties; c. that it would pursue its business and engage in the successful and profitable construction and operation of ethanol plants; d. that it would enjoy the benefits of the successful and profitable construction and operation of ethanol plants, including but not limited to the profits resulting therefrom; and e. that it would ultimately enjoy the value of the ethanol plants.

20

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 21 of 27

86.

McGuire Woods had knowledge of these expectancies, and indeed McGuire

Woods fostered these expectancies as the counsel selected and hired by Ethanex to complete these transactions. 87. McGuire Woods, through their deliberate conduct and illegal activities referenced

herein, interfered with those business expectancies and prevented the timely effective registration of the Ethanex securities. 88. But for the conduct of the McGuire Woods, Ethanex was reasonably certain to

have been able to register its stock in a timely fashion and to enjoy the anticipated benefit of the effective registration in a timely fashion and with an unblemished record. 89. McGuire Woods acted without justification and in plain and conscious disregard

of the law in interfering with Ethanexs expectancies. 90. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and omissions of the

McGuire Woods, Ethanex has been injured and damaged as set forth herein, including but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the business expectancies reference herein. 91. McGuire Woods actions and/or omissions were done in a willful, wanton and

malicious manner, in direct contravention not only of federal securities law, but also of the fiduciary duties of counsel to Ethanex. As a result, punitive damages should be awarded to punish the McGuire Woods and deter others from similar conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper.

21

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 22 of 27

COUNT V Negligence Legal Malpractice 92. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 93. In offering its services to prospective clients, including Ethanex, McGuire Woods

represented itself to be an expert in federal securities law and the representation of public companies. Because of this claimed expertise, McGuire Woods demanded and received premium rates from its clients, including Ethanex. 94. In accepting the representation of Ethanex, McGuire Woods accepted a duty to

act with reasonable care, diligence and competence as counsel to Ethanex, with respect to the firms work and its dealings associated with the Ethanex PIPE offering. 95. McGuire Woods was negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care and

competence with regard to the Ethanex PIPE offering. McGuire Woods negligent conduct included its failure to properly document the relationship of stock purchasers and company insiders; its issuance of a legally incorrect opinion letter to the transfer agent and failure to make proper disclosures of insider interests in the PIPE offering. 96. McGuire Woods failure to exercise the proper degree of care caused injury to

Ethanex as described above, including but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50. 97. McGuire Woods actions and/or omissions were done in a willful, wanton and

malicious manner, in direct contravention not only of federal securities law but also of the fiduciary duties as counsel to Ethanex. As a result, punitive damages should be awarded to punish the Defendant and deter others from similar conduct.

22

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 23 of 27

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper. COUNT VI Negligent Supervision 98. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 99. In addition to, or in the alternative to, McGuire Woods responsibility for the

conduct of Zehil as a partner in the firm, McGuire Woods had an independent duty to Ethanex, as a client of the firm, to exercise reasonable care and competence with respect to the firms work and its dealings associated with the Ethanex PIPE offering. Such duty included a duty to exercise reasonable care and competence in supervising and monitoring the conduct of its partner, Zehil. 100. McGuire Woods was negligent, in that it failed to exercise reasonable care or

competence in supervising and monitoring its partner Zehil in a series of transactions, including the Ethanex transaction, in which McGuire Woods and Zehil issued false and fraudulent opinion letters, on McGuire Woods stationary, without adequate control or supervision over his actions and without any effective steps taken by McGuire Woods to prevent Zehil from committing the wrongful acts alleged herein. 101. For a law firm of McGuire Woods stature, size, and claimed competence, the

danger to clients of a rogue partner in the securities law field must have been apparent and the failure to take steps which would have prevented Zehils activities, or lead to the discovery of

23

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 24 of 27

such activities before they injured Ethanex, was unreasonable, negligent and a breach of McGuire Woods duties to its clients. 102. As a direct result of McGuire Woods failure to exercise the proper degree of

care, it caused injury to the client, Ethanex, because as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Zehil, a McGuire Woods partner, was permitted to unlawfully purchase and sell unrestricted shares of Ethanex stock, and manipulate the market for such stock, causing Ethanex damages as set forth herein. These damages include, without limitation, the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50. 103. McGuire Woods actions and/or omissions were done in a willful, wanton and

malicious manner, in direct contravention not only of federal securities law but also of the fiduciary duties as counsel to Ethanex. As a result, punitive damages should be awarded to punish the Defendant and deter others from similar conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper. COUNT VII Breach of Fiduciary Duty 104. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates each and every allegation set forth in

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 105. As counsel and corporate secretary for Ethanex, McGuire Woods owed to

Ethanex the highest degree of loyalty, good faith and honest dealing. 106. McGuire Woods encouraged Ethanex to trust in its honesty and ability.

24

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 25 of 27

107.

Ethanex did, in fact, rely upon McGuire Woods good faith and integrity in

retaining McGuire Woods as Ethanexs counsel for the PIPE transaction and as general corporate counsel and corporate secretary. 108. McGuire Woods betrayed the trust placed in it by Ethanex and breached their

fiduciary duties to Ethanex by abusing their role to engage in illegal activities and self dealing to the detriment of Ethanex as set forth herein 109. McGuire Woods conduct caused Ethanex injuries as described herein, including

but not limited to the Damages set forth in paragraph 51 and the total loss of the Expectancies set forth in paragraph 50. 110. McGuire Woods actions and/or omissions were done in a willful, wanton and

malicious manner, in direct contravention not only of federal securities law but also of the fiduciary duties of counsel to Ethanex. As a result, punitive damages should be awarded to punish the McGuire Woods and deter others from similar conduct. 111. As a result of McGuire Woods breach of fiduciary duty, and in addition to

damages and any other remedy, McGuire Woods should be deemed to have forfeited all right to any fee paid by Ethanex for the legal work performed by McGuire Woods. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against McGuire Woods for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper. Conclusion WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eric C. Rajala, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Ethanex Energy, Inc., respectfully prays that the Court enter judgment against the Defendant McGuire Woods,

25

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 26 of 27

LLP, for actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interests, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper, including but not limited to all remedies provided for by federal and Kansas statute. Demand for Jury Trial Plaintiff requests trial by jury on all issues so triable. Determination of Place of Trial Plaintiff requests that trial of this matter be held in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Kansas City Division. Respectfully submitted, EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC

/s/ David W. Edgar John M. Edgar David W. Edgar Brian T. Bear 1032 Pennsylvania Ave. Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Telephone: (816) 531-0033 Facsimile: (816) 531-3322 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

KS #19121

26

Case 2:08-cv-02638-CM-DJW Document 135 Filed 08/24/10 Page 27 of 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via electronic transmission on this 24th day of August, 2010, to: R. Lawrence Ward James M. Humphrey Cathy J. Dean Miriam Bailey Polsinelli Shugart PC 120 W. 12th Street, Suite 1700 Kansas City, MO 64105 lward@polsinelli.com jhumphrey@polsinelli.com cdean@polsinelli.com mbailey@polsinelli.com Phillip R. Garrison Polsinelli Shugart PC 901 St. Louis Street, Suite 1200 Springfield, MO 65806 pgarrison@polsinelli.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

/s/ David W. Edgar Attorney for Plaintiff

27